All
opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official
publication in the North Carolina Reports and North Carolina Court of Appeals
Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an
opinion and the print version appearing in the North Carolina Reports and North
Carolina Court of Appeals Reports, the latest print version is to be considered
authoritative.
NO. COA07-222
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:
18 March 2008
KENNETH HEATHERLY,
Employee,
Plaintiff,
v. North
Carolina Industrial Commission
I.C.
File No. 451639
THE HOLLINGSWORTH COMPANY, INC.,
Employer,
and
STONEWOOD INSURANCE COMPANY,
Carrier,
Defendants.
Appeal by defendants from opinion and award filed 3 November
2006 by the Full Commission. Heard in
the Court of Appeals 19 September 2007.
Brooks,
Stevens & Pope, P.A., by Bambee B. Blake and Ginny P. Lanier, for
defendants.
Bazzle
& Carr, P.A., by Ervin W. Bazzle, for plaintiff.
ELMORE, Judge.
Kenneth Heatherly (plaintiff) was working as a drywall
hanger for his brother, Randy Heatherly, the owner of CDS Drywall on 12 July
2004. As a result of inclement weather
including rain and lightning, he and other workers ceased work on the project
and took shelter in the garage. The
garage was mostly finished but lacked doors.
Plaintiff picked up a “landline” telephone located in the garage to call
his brother and inform him that the crew had stopped work, but just as he
dialed the number, a lightning strike occurred. The record is unclear whether the lightning struck plaintiff
directly, came in through the telephone line, or simply charged the surrounding
air and gave him a jolt. Plaintiff was
knocked back several feet in the air, landed on his right side, and broke his
right hand in the fall.
Plaintiff’s coworkers rushed him to the hospital, where his
hand was x-rayed, revealing fractures in his fourth and fifth metacarpals. Plaintiff received morphine for the pain and
a splint for his hand. When he went to
Dr. G. Ruffin Benton after his release from the hospital, plaintiff received a
referral to an orthopedist and was prescribed Percocet and Ibuprofen. However, because “his workers’ compensation
papers were not in order,” he was not able to see the orthopedist.
Plaintiff filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits,
which the Hollingsworth Company and its carrier, Stonewood Insurance Company
(together, defendants) denied. Deputy
Commissioner Kim Ledford filed an opinion and award on 6 January 2006, in which
she awarded plaintiff past and future medical expenses; total disability
compensation of $333.35 per week for the period of 12 July 2004 through 2
January 2005; attorneys’ fees; and costs.
Defendants appealed to the Full Commission, which affirmed the Deputy
Commissioner’s opinion with slight modifications. Defendants now appeal to this Court.
Defendants first argue that because there was insufficient
evidence that plaintiff’s employment placed him at an increased risk of being
struck by lightning, the Full Commission erred in finding and concluding that
his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. Because the Full Commission applied the
incorrect standard in reaching its ultimate conclusion of law that plaintiff’s
injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, we reverse and remand
for new findings of fact and conclusions of law.
“‘Whether an accident arose out of the employment is a mixed
question of law and fact.’” Frost v.
Salter Path Fire & Rescue, 361 N.C. 181, 184, 639 S.E.2d 429, 432
(2007) (quoting Sandy v. Stackhouse, Inc., 258 N.C. 194, 197, 128 S.E.2d
218, 221 (1962)). A determination that
a worker was, or was not, at an increased risk of injury is a conclusion of
law. Dillingham v. Yeargin
Construction Co., 320 N.C. 499, 502, 358 S.E.2d 380, 382 (1987).
“This Court’s review is limited to a consideration of
whether there was any competent evidence to support the Full Commission’s
findings of fact and whether these findings of fact support the Commission’s
conclusions of law.” Ard v.
Owens-Illinois, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 642 S.E.2d 257, 259 (2007)
(quotations, citations, and emphasis omitted).
Additionally, if “there is some evidence of substance which directly or
by reasonable inference tends to support the findings, this Court is bound by
such evidence, even though there is evidence that would have supported a
finding to the contrary.” Id. at
___, 642 S.E.2d 257, 259-60 (quotations and citations omitted). However, “[i]f the conclusions of the
Commission are based upon a . . . misapprehension of the law, the
case should be remanded so ‘that the evidence [may] be considered in its true
legal light.’” Clark v. Wal-Mart,
360 N.C. 41, 43, 619 S.E.2d 491, 492 (2005) (quoting McGill v. Lumberton,
215 N.C. 752, 754, 3 S.E.2d 324, 326 (1939)).
Defendants rely heavily on Pope v. Goodson, 249 N.C.
690, 107 S.E.2d 524 (1959). In Pope,
our Supreme Court addressed the issue of when suffering a lightning strike is
compensable under the Workers’ Compensation statutes. Conducting a fairly thorough survey of cases from across the
nation, the Court articulated the proper inquiry as follows: “Was the danger to
which [the employee] was subjected one which was incident to the employment, or
was it one to which other people, the public generally, in that neighborhood,
were subjected?” Id. at 696, 107
S.E.2d at 528. Defendants,
characterizing this inquiry as an “increased risk test in lightning strike
cases,” posit that plaintiff failed to prove, and that the Full Commission
failed to find, any indication of increased risk.
The Full Commission found that plaintiff was working at a
job site high on a mountain; that a thunderstorm arose; that plaintiff was
organizing his equipment in order to leave the site; that plaintiff was located
in an unfinished garage that had no doors; and that plaintiff received a charge
or jolt from lightning. These findings
are all supported by competent evidence, and are thus binding on this Court. See Owens-Illinois, ___ N.C. App. at
___, 642 S.E.2d at 259-60.
We agree with defendants that Pope sets forth the
appropriate “increased risk” test to be applied in the present case. It therefore appears that the Full
Commission did not consider the evidence “‘in its true legal light.’” See Clark, 360 N.C. at 43, 619 S.E.2d
at 492 (quoting McGill, 215 N.C. at 754, 3 S.E.2d at 326). In conclusion of law 1, the Commission,
quoting 1 Arthur Larson and Lex K. Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation
Law 5-1 (2000), stated, “One exception used to soften the increased-risk
rule is the holding that if the harm, though initiated by an act of God, takes
effect through contact of claimant with any part of the premises, causal
connection with the employment is shown.”
(Quoting Defendants are correct
that this is not the law in North Carolina; this Court has articulated an
“increased risk” test and rejected the “positional risk” analysis adopted in
many jurisdictions. See, e.g.,
Rose v. City of Rocky Mount, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 637 S.E.2d 251, 257
(2006) (holding that “the ‘increased risk’ test and not the ‘positional risk’
rule is the law of the State”).
Moreover, the Full Commission did not cite Pope and did not make
the findings required to support a conclusion of law that plaintiff was at an
increased risk of a lighting strike as compared to members of the “public
generally, in that neighborhood . . . .”
Pope, 249 N.C. at 696, 107 S.E.2d at 528.
Whether or not the evidence supports a conclusion of law
that plaintiff was at an increased risk of a lightning strike, it appears that
the Full Commission reached its ultimate conclusion under a misapprehension of
the law. Therefore, we reverse the Full
Commission’s opinion and award and remand the matter to the Full Commission to
make new findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with the
“increased risk” principles set forth in Pope. See Clark, 360 N.C. at 46, 619 S.E.2d at 494 (remanding a
case “to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Industrial Commission
with instructions to find new facts and make new conclusions of law in
accordance with the proper burden of proof”).
Because we reverse and remand, we need not address
defendants’ remaining assignments of error.
However, we reject defendants’ contention that the Full Commission
should have forced plaintiff to produce expert witness testimony on the cause
of his hand injury. Defendants are
correct that “where the exact nature and probable genesis of a particular type
of injury involves complicated medical questions far removed from the ordinary
experience and knowledge of laymen, only an expert can give competent opinion
evidence as to the cause of the injury.”
Click v. Freight Carriers, 300 N.C. 164, 167, 265 S.E.2d 389, 391
(1980) (citation omitted). However, we
agree with the Full Commission that “[t]his is not a situation that involves
complex medical issues, such that expert testimony is needed to establish the
cause and effect between being thrown up into the air and landing on a concrete
floor and sustaining a hand fracture.”
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Judges MCGEE and TYSON concur.